/5
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-a...
/5
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/japan-a...
/4
/4
/3
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-...
/3
open-web-advocacy.org/blog/apples-...
/2
/2
This is simply false.
This is simply false.
💬The DMA has been in force for 15 months. No browser vendor has ported their engine to iOS. Not because they can’t, but because Apple’s rules make it nearly impossible. Why is Apple insisting vendors lose their existing EU users? (abbreviated)
Apple’s reply?
💬The DMA has been in force for 15 months. No browser vendor has ported their engine to iOS. Not because they can’t, but because Apple’s rules make it nearly impossible. Why is Apple insisting vendors lose their existing EU users? (abbreviated)
Apple’s reply?
Not because they can’t. Because Apple won’t let them.
Not because they can’t. Because Apple won’t let them.
They could let browser vendors ship two versions of the same app, one for the EU, one for the rest of the world, under the same bundle ID.
Apple just refuses.
They could let browser vendors ship two versions of the same app, one for the EU, one for the rest of the world, under the same bundle ID.
Apple just refuses.
Instead, they must publish a brand new app and rebuild their user base from scratch
Instead, they must publish a brand new app and rebuild their user base from scratch
🚫 Apple forces browsers to abandon all current EU user
🧪 No way to test EU browser features for global devs
✈️ No clarity on updates for EU users who travel
📄 One-sided legal terms and contracts
🚫 Apple forces browsers to abandon all current EU user
🧪 No way to test EU browser features for global devs
✈️ No clarity on updates for EU users who travel
📄 One-sided legal terms and contracts
⚠️Vendors want to ship their REAL browser to iOS, not be forced to produce a separate one with Safari's engine.
⚠️Vendors want to ship their REAL browser to iOS, not be forced to produce a separate one with Safari's engine.